From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751038AbWJLSkh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:40:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751042AbWJLSkh (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:40:37 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:62640 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751018AbWJLSkg (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:40:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPI: improve sysfs compiler complaint handling From: Arjan van de Ven To: David Brownell Cc: Jeff Garzik , dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, Andrew Morton , LKML In-Reply-To: <200610121108.59727.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <20061012014920.GA13000@havoc.gtf.org> <200610121108.59727.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:39:34 +0200 Message-Id: <1160678375.3000.454.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Does anyone know why the GCC folk have decided to go against decades > of common practice here??? because it's new semantics. I was involved in this GCC feature (not in the coding just in the asking for it) and this behavior was specifically requested: It is called __must_check, you MUST CHECK it. It's not the normal "unused warning", by putting the attribute on the function you tell gcc that the result MUST be checked. Just a cast to void isn't checking it.... so it rightfully warns.